You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> on 2017/04/12 12:56:20 UTC
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Hi Emmanuel.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> I admit I'm not sure to understand what you are complaining about.
> Last
> year you complained that you were the last one maintaining
> commons-math
It was not a complaint, but a (sad) fact.
> and that a monolithic component was unsustainable.
Not a complaint, but my analysis of the actual situation:
http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
> Since then we got new
> contributors and smaller components have been spun off commons-math.
Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change
the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I
observe
on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one year
ago and I was right, in hindsight).
> What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC?
With "Commons RNG", I think that I showed that the "new, small, focused
components" route is the right one.[1]
Such components can be used and contributed to easily. For example,
because
there are much fewer parts, there is much less risk that pulling on a
thread
will lead to sweeping changes (into parts where one can be clueless
about
the implications).
Also, a focused component can be maintained by a single developer, if
need
be. Looking at the evolution of the older/mature components, it seems
that
it is most often the case nowadays.
CM can be further recycled in that way. I tried to (re-)start a
discussion
about it:
http://markmail.org/thread/j5532mnsrgu4jzkv
Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you
(IIRC,
pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been agreed
upon...
IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
contributing
to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in preventing "do-ocracy"
wrt the
choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC:
http://markmail.org/thread/pgrgnnwjnqrtzrw3
http://markmail.org/message/ulxcoqd663lgvul3
is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not get
the
minimal support for an official release, even if there would be no
"technical
reason"[4] to prevent such release.
Thanks for your attention[5],
Gilles
[1] It's the right size and scope: I now agree with the PMC members who
did not see it useful to have its current modules as separate
components.
[2] Assuming that a dead/zombie project cannot be healthy. ;-)
[3] My roadmap is totally conservative: CM code that is not moved to
another component, stays in CM "master" branch as is, for anyone to
pick up later. The alternative is not conservative, and could lead
to changes that will prove wrong later on.
[4] Apart from the plenty of unresolved issues (cf. JIRA).
[5] As usual, sorry for the long email, but trying to keep messages
short does not seem to help either in conveying correctly what I
perceive as a need for PMC action...
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Raymond DeCampo <ra...@decampo.org>.
Well, as someone with even less time put in than Rob, I'll chime in as well.
First, while I wasn't here for it, it is clear that the fork was traumatic
for the community. It should be expected there would be a recovery time.
I think a lot of positive steps have been taken and given where the
community was coming from we are not in a bad place now.
IMHO, a TLP would be the best result IF there are enough contributors
supporting it. The current process of digesting [math] by splitting it
into components that are either easily maintained/understood (e.g.
[numbers]) or adopted by a domain expert (e.g. [rng]) is a good way to
continue moving forward. If a large enough contingent coalesces around the
new components perhaps a TLP could be formed.
On the other hand if we discover that a small number of components is all
the community needs then maybe [math] becomes dormant and the new
components carry the future. And that will be fine as well.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose that I’ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in responding
> to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts of matters
> because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project than most of
> you, and (2) I have a serially agnostic temperament [personal issue :-)].
>
> So after a year of participation in the project (Commons generally), I’ve
> seen and come to enjoy that development is an extremely lengthy process
> (and I believe for the better because it accommodates all necessary and
> sufficient deliberation). Thus, I tend to take a slow perspective on any of
> these changes realizing that I’m not going to be able to accomplish
> anything short of the long order of weeks (short order of months). With
> that in mind, I ask, what can I do to help [math]? What is “progress”?
>
> I think we could chip away at a 4.0 or a 3.7 release. I think we could go
> TLP? Either direction contains the same difficulty in that finding
> contributors in this domain is, apparently, quite difficult. Either
> direction requires a relatively prioritized backlog, so that’s been my
> intention thus far. And, further I plan to try to fix some of the bugs.
>
> As for the philosophy of the matter, I really don’t know what’s best. I do
> think that much of this is because [math] sits squarely in-between a TLP
> and a component that could be used by any application.
>
> So there. I’ve completely avoided taking an opinion one way or the other
> (agnosticism at it’s best). I’m more in the boat of what can I do right now
> to help.
>
> Cheers,
> -Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 16, 2017 10:56 AM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Gilles,
What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what
new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no
problem with that. But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects then I
really feel like it should be done as:
A: Commons Math with Commons Math RNG, Commons Math Numbers, Commons Math
XXX, etc.
B: Math TLP with RNG, Numbers, XXX, etc.
I have a few reasons for feeling this way:
1. Although you seem to disagree, these components do seem to be
related in that they all have something to do with Mathematical concepts.
2. It is easier for users to find if they are all grouped together.
That said, all of this is just housekeeping and can be addressed at almost
any time. If you want to create a new Commons component you can create a
new git repo any time you want to. The only time you really need to ask for
permission from the PMC is when you want to integrate it into the Commons
home page. Of course, you should seek consensus from your fellow Math
developers but if you make a repo and populate it I am sure that others
will go along if they can see that what you have done is a good idea.
I keep getting the impression that you believe people are standing in your
way. They aren’t. If you start a discussion you should expect people to
weigh in. Just because they disagree doesn’t mean they are going to stop
you. But if you don’t listen to their opinion don’t expect to get much help
either.
Ralph
I agree with Ralph. Nice message. Great options, and simple, A or B :-)
Gary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 17, 2017 3:32 PM, "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
Hi Ralph.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify
> what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I
> have no problem with that.
>
We have
* RNG
We will have
* Numbers
We might have
* SigProc
* Clustering
But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects
> then I really feel like it should be done as:
>
> A: Commons Math with Commons Math RNG, Commons Math Numbers, Commons
> Math XXX, etc.
>
Do you mean a modularized "Commons Math"?
If so, my opinion is that it is not feasible at this point.
B: Math TLP with RNG, Numbers, XXX, etc.
>
Also not feasible at this point:
1. There are too few developers to support all of the code in
"Commons Math", and I've the feeling that there won't be enough
volunteers to help this TLP. [cf. James Carman's offer that had
been turned down by the PMC.]
2. The amount of code that is supported by the current team is so
small that "Commons" is the perfect home for these few new
components.
I have a few reasons for feeling this way:
> 1. Although you seem to disagree, these components do seem to be
> related in that they all have something to do with Mathematical
> concepts.
>
It's hard to deny that, but the same goes for other components
that don't seem to trouble anyone (RDF, Compress, Crypto, Functor).
2. It is easier for users to find if they are all grouped together.
>
By the same token, why not group all of "Commons" in a single
maven project?
I want to do that to create an Uber jar and site with Javadocs.
Gary
Doesn't make sense? Then it also does not make
sense to group things under the sole "math" category: it's just
too broad and does not help users discover whether there is
something fit for them.
> That said, all of this is just housekeeping and can be addressed at
> almost any time.
>
Indeed.
As Ray also pointed out: we can decide later to group tools
if it would make sense from a management POV.
If you want to create a new Commons component you
> can create a new git repo any time you want to.
>
Thanks.
The only time you
> really need to ask for permission from the PMC is when you want to
> integrate it into the Commons home page.
>
Obviously, this work aims at that. [Otherwise, why bother?]
So, what does the PMC say?
Of course, you should seek
> consensus from your fellow Math developers but if you make a repo and
> populate it I am sure that others will go along if they can see that
> what you have done is a good idea.
>
That's what I did with "Commons RNG".
I keep getting the impression that you believe people are standing in
> your way. They aren’t. If you start a discussion you should expect
> people to weigh in. Just because they disagree doesn’t mean they are
> going to stop you. But if you don’t listen to their opinion don’t
> expect to get much help either.
>
Let's not reverse the roles, please?
Did you read that thread:
http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
?
Before I ended up being insulted, I helped with "Commons Math"
for an _extended_ period of time despite my long time disagreement
with the management of the codebase.
I spent considerable time doing "consensus" things even when my
opinion had been that they were useless (and proven so, later on).
So, not only did I listen, but I did much more than "listen"...
Gilles
> Ralph
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Ralph.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify
> what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I
> have no problem with that.
We have
* RNG
We will have
* Numbers
We might have
* SigProc
* Clustering
> But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects
> then I really feel like it should be done as:
>
> A: Commons Math with Commons Math RNG, Commons Math Numbers, Commons
> Math XXX, etc.
Do you mean a modularized "Commons Math"?
If so, my opinion is that it is not feasible at this point.
> B: Math TLP with RNG, Numbers, XXX, etc.
Also not feasible at this point:
1. There are too few developers to support all of the code in
"Commons Math", and I've the feeling that there won't be enough
volunteers to help this TLP. [cf. James Carman's offer that had
been turned down by the PMC.]
2. The amount of code that is supported by the current team is so
small that "Commons" is the perfect home for these few new
components.
> I have a few reasons for feeling this way:
> 1. Although you seem to disagree, these components do seem to be
> related in that they all have something to do with Mathematical
> concepts.
It's hard to deny that, but the same goes for other components
that don't seem to trouble anyone (RDF, Compress, Crypto, Functor).
> 2. It is easier for users to find if they are all grouped together.
By the same token, why not group all of "Commons" in a single
maven project? Doesn't make sense? Then it also does not make
sense to group things under the sole "math" category: it's just
too broad and does not help users discover whether there is
something fit for them.
>
> That said, all of this is just housekeeping and can be addressed at
> almost any time.
Indeed.
As Ray also pointed out: we can decide later to group tools
if it would make sense from a management POV.
> If you want to create a new Commons component you
> can create a new git repo any time you want to.
Thanks.
> The only time you
> really need to ask for permission from the PMC is when you want to
> integrate it into the Commons home page.
Obviously, this work aims at that. [Otherwise, why bother?]
So, what does the PMC say?
> Of course, you should seek
> consensus from your fellow Math developers but if you make a repo and
> populate it I am sure that others will go along if they can see that
> what you have done is a good idea.
That's what I did with "Commons RNG".
> I keep getting the impression that you believe people are standing in
> your way. They aren\u2019t. If you start a discussion you should expect
> people to weigh in. Just because they disagree doesn\u2019t mean they are
> going to stop you. But if you don\u2019t listen to their opinion don\u2019t
> expect to get much help either.
Let's not reverse the roles, please?
Did you read that thread:
http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
?
Before I ended up being insulted, I helped with "Commons Math"
for an _extended_ period of time despite my long time disagreement
with the management of the codebase.
I spent considerable time doing "consensus" things even when my
opinion had been that they were useless (and proven so, later on).
So, not only did I listen, but I did much more than "listen"...
Gilles
>
> Ralph
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Gilles,
What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no problem with that. But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects then I really feel like it should be done as:
A: Commons Math with Commons Math RNG, Commons Math Numbers, Commons Math XXX, etc.
B: Math TLP with RNG, Numbers, XXX, etc.
I have a few reasons for feeling this way:
1. Although you seem to disagree, these components do seem to be related in that they all have something to do with Mathematical concepts.
2. It is easier for users to find if they are all grouped together.
That said, all of this is just housekeeping and can be addressed at almost any time. If you want to create a new Commons component you can create a new git repo any time you want to. The only time you really need to ask for permission from the PMC is when you want to integrate it into the Commons home page. Of course, you should seek consensus from your fellow Math developers but if you make a repo and populate it I am sure that others will go along if they can see that what you have done is a good idea.
I keep getting the impression that you believe people are standing in your way. They aren’t. If you start a discussion you should expect people to weigh in. Just because they disagree doesn’t mean they are going to stop you. But if you don’t listen to their opinion don’t expect to get much help either.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Rob.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:49:32 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> I suppose that I\u2019ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in
> responding to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts
> of
> matters because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project
> than most of you, and (2) I have a serially agnostic temperament
> [personal issue :-)].
>
> So after a year of participation in the project (Commons generally),
> I\u2019ve seen and come to enjoy that development is an extremely lengthy
> process (and I believe for the better because it accommodates all
> necessary and sufficient deliberation). Thus, I tend to take a slow
> perspective on any of these changes realizing that I\u2019m not going to
> be
> able to accomplish anything short of the long order of weeks (short
> order of months). With that in mind, I ask, what can I do to help
> [math]? What is \u201cprogress\u201d?
I've given my POV on the matter.
> I think we could chip away at a 4.0
Yes, but only after all current work on new components has
been done (or a clear decision made to abandon the idea).
Currently, the following could gather support from developers
who were interested in working on "Commons Math"-related
utilities:
* Numbers (Eric Bernhill, Ray DeCampo)
* SigProc (Bernd Porr)
* Clustering (Artem Barger)
"Numbers" is underway and its contents has been the subject
of a recent thread. You are welcome to open the corresponding
issues in JIRA.
When done, it will deprecate the following packages from
"Commons Math" (wholly or partly):
* o.a.c.m.complex
* o.a.c.m.fraction
* o.a.c.m.util
* o.a.c.m.primes
The potential contents of "SigProc" exists in the library
which Bernd proposed to relocate here, but according to the
"operative definition" of "Commons", he is to be initiating
the porting work.
When done, it will deprecate:
* o.a.c.m.filter
The new "Clustering" component would be a port of
* o.a.c.m.ml
[Artem has proposed to enhance the "clustering" algorithms.]
> or a 3.7 release.
This would be a time-consuming (and futile, IMO) exercise.
> I think we
> could go TLP? Either direction contains the same difficulty in that
> finding contributors in this domain is, apparently, quite difficult.
What domain?
"Math" was an ill-chosen name for a programming project, because
* it gave the illusion that the scope was obvious
* it allowed the scope to grow indefinitely
> Either direction requires a relatively prioritized backlog, so that\u2019s
> been my intention thus far. And, further I plan to try to fix some of
> the bugs.
If you are agnostic about how you help, I'd kindly suggest
that the priority be given on advancing the work on the
components cited above.
>
> As for the philosophy of the matter, I really don\u2019t know what\u2019s best.
> I do think that much of this is because [math] sits squarely
> in-between a TLP and a component that could be used by any
> application.
"Commons Math" is indeed not a component; it resulted from
the aggregation its main developers' personal toolboxes.
I've long suspected that this could lead to disaster. And it
happened last year.
Regards,
Gilles
> So there. I\u2019ve completely avoided taking an opinion one way or the
> other (agnosticism at it\u2019s best). I\u2019m more in the boat of what can I
> do right now to help.
>
> Cheers,
> -Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com>.
I suppose that I’ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in responding to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts of matters because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project than most of you, and (2) I have a serially agnostic temperament [personal issue :-)].
So after a year of participation in the project (Commons generally), I’ve seen and come to enjoy that development is an extremely lengthy process (and I believe for the better because it accommodates all necessary and sufficient deliberation). Thus, I tend to take a slow perspective on any of these changes realizing that I’m not going to be able to accomplish anything short of the long order of weeks (short order of months). With that in mind, I ask, what can I do to help [math]? What is “progress”?
I think we could chip away at a 4.0 or a 3.7 release. I think we could go TLP? Either direction contains the same difficulty in that finding contributors in this domain is, apparently, quite difficult. Either direction requires a relatively prioritized backlog, so that’s been my intention thus far. And, further I plan to try to fix some of the bugs.
As for the philosophy of the matter, I really don’t know what’s best. I do think that much of this is because [math] sits squarely in-between a TLP and a component that could be used by any application.
So there. I’ve completely avoided taking an opinion one way or the other (agnosticism at it’s best). I’m more in the boat of what can I do right now to help.
Cheers,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:51:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles:
>> Hi Oliver.
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
>>>> Hi Benedikt.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG
>>>>> belong
>>>>> into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their
>>>>> own.
>>>>
>>>> The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for
>>>> projects too small to exist on their own.
>>>> I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing
>>>> to maintain the component.
>>>>
>>>>> But that\u2019s only my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that
>>>> "RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other>
>>>> component.
>>>
>>> The Commons charter mentions "reusable libraries and components". I
>>> used
>>> to interpret this as general-purpose components, meaning that they
>>> are
>>> useful for applications in multiple domains. This definition should
>>> hold
>>> for most of the components we have now.
>>
>> But not for "RNG" or "Numbers"?
>>
>> How many is "multiple"?
>>
>>> It does not hold for specialized math components.
>>
>> Do you believe that the other components are not "specialized"?
> Yes, I believe that they are general purpose in nature. Stuff from
> [lang] or [io] can be used e.g. by applications in financial sector,
> in
> aviation, in medicine, in web applications, in command line tools,
> you
> name it.
And many of the packages in "Commons Math" can also be used
in all those. [Financial applications without statistics or
integer arithmetics? Engineering without linear algebra, solvers,
optimizers? Medecine without geometry (for 3D visualization)? ...]
I think that it's not the right POV.
This place (and I read it from "Commons" people) came about as
a home for codebases that were too small too warrant a TLP.
Add the commitment to maintain the codebase, and it's a fine
policy for accepting new content.
>>
>> I never had the need for any of the "Commons" components except
>> CM, but it would not occur to me to speculate about how largely
>> useful they actually are.
>> I trust their creators/maintainers in that respect.
> This is not about usefulness of a component, but whether it is a fit
> for
> [commons].
>
> That you never had the need for any other component could also be an
> indicator that [math] does not really fit in, couldn't it?
Hmm, let's pause a minute...
I totally agree with you.
Or, in fact, you agree with me, finally!
Indeed, if I knew how, I could make a query on the ML archive,
and retrieve a few posts where I wrote, several years ago, that
"Commons Math" was too big (a.o. things) to be considered on the
same footing as the other components.
However, contrary to "Commons Math", the parts which I want to
extract from it, fully qualify (according to the above operating
definition).
Moreover, some of those utilities are often so necessary that
many developers constantly reinvent them when they are not
provided by the language standard libraries.
Regards,
Gilles
>
> Oliver
>
>>
>> Now, you can validly argue that people needing the kind of
>> math-related stuff of CM would not use Java... ;-)
>>
>>> Therefore, I
>>> personally feel uneasy with them and would have difficulties to
>>> provide
>>> oversight for them.
>>
>> As long as someone else helps where you cannot, what's the
>> problem?
>> And when nobody can, there is "dormant"...
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>>
>>> But granted, the distinction is not very clear, and this is my
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>>> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles:
> Hi Oliver.
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
>>> Hi Benedikt.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong
>>>> into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their own.
>>>
>>> The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for
>>> projects too small to exist on their own.
>>> I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing
>>> to maintain the component.
>>>
>>>> But that\u2019s only my opinion.
>>>
>>> I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that
>>> "RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other>
>>> component.
>>
>> The Commons charter mentions "reusable libraries and components". I used
>> to interpret this as general-purpose components, meaning that they are
>> useful for applications in multiple domains. This definition should hold
>> for most of the components we have now.
>
> But not for "RNG" or "Numbers"?
>
> How many is "multiple"?
>
>> It does not hold for specialized math components.
>
> Do you believe that the other components are not "specialized"?
Yes, I believe that they are general purpose in nature. Stuff from
[lang] or [io] can be used e.g. by applications in financial sector, in
aviation, in medicine, in web applications, in command line tools, you
name it.
>
> I never had the need for any of the "Commons" components except
> CM, but it would not occur to me to speculate about how largely
> useful they actually are.
> I trust their creators/maintainers in that respect.
This is not about usefulness of a component, but whether it is a fit for
[commons].
That you never had the need for any other component could also be an
indicator that [math] does not really fit in, couldn't it?
Oliver
>
> Now, you can validly argue that people needing the kind of
> math-related stuff of CM would not use Java... ;-)
>
>> Therefore, I
>> personally feel uneasy with them and would have difficulties to provide
>> oversight for them.
>
> As long as someone else helps where you cannot, what's the
> problem?
> And when nobody can, there is "dormant"...
>
> Gilles
>
>>
>> But granted, the distinction is not very clear, and this is my
>> interpretation.
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>> [...]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Oliver.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
>> Hi Benedikt.
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>>> My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong
>>> into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their
>>> own.
>>
>> The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for
>> projects too small to exist on their own.
>> I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing
>> to maintain the component.
>>
>>> But that\u2019s only my opinion.
>>
>> I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that
>> "RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other>
>> component.
>
> The Commons charter mentions "reusable libraries and components". I
> used
> to interpret this as general-purpose components, meaning that they
> are
> useful for applications in multiple domains. This definition should
> hold
> for most of the components we have now.
But not for "RNG" or "Numbers"?
How many is "multiple"?
> It does not hold for specialized math components.
Do you believe that the other components are not "specialized"?
I never had the need for any of the "Commons" components except
CM, but it would not occur to me to speculate about how largely
useful they actually are.
I trust their creators/maintainers in that respect.
Now, you can validly argue that people needing the kind of
math-related stuff of CM would not use Java... ;-)
> Therefore, I
> personally feel uneasy with them and would have difficulties to
> provide
> oversight for them.
As long as someone else helps where you cannot, what's the
problem?
And when nobody can, there is "dormant"...
Gilles
>
> But granted, the distinction is not very clear, and this is my
> interpretation.
>
> Oliver
>
>> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Hi,
Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
> Hi Benedikt.
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty
>> well:
>>
>> \u201eI see busy people doing what they want when the want in all
>> of Commons, respectfully and diligently.\u201c
>>
>> After going through the mails, I still don\u2019t understand how the PMC
>> needs to change it ways in order to move CM forward. If there\u2019s nobody
>> interested/has the time to maintain the code, so be it. I\u2019m regularly
>> monitoring the proper components and move those which really nobody
>> needs anymore to dormant. CM has never been on my list.
>
> For good reason; CM contains very useful code.
> This discussion is (again) about the issue which I tried to tackle
> all those years: avoid becoming irrelevant (in the Java world).
>
> The CM team was too conservative; which, in a domain where there
> is no wide interest (scientific computing in Java), was not an
> asset (as usually upheld in "Commons").
>
>> Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I
>> remember (I\u2019m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC
>> was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group
>> decided it would be better to stay at commons.
>
> This needs correction:
> 1. All the CM regular developers voted to create a TLP (and we
> were even already discussing a name).
> 2. During that discussion, I asked whether some of the roadblocks
> (mainly overly conservativeness) would be lifted.
> Then, rather than constructively lay out on how we can continue
> working for the benefit of everyone,[1] the initiative was
> "abandoned" following Phil Steitz's sudden decision to drop
> its PMC-chair candidacy for the new project.
>
>> Later some of those
>> people decided it would be better to move away from Apache all
>> together.
>>
>> That\u2019s okay for me.
>
> It should have posed question to the PMC: Why do people decide
> to leave? Isn't there anything to do about it?
>
>> My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong
>> into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their own.
>
> The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for
> projects too small to exist on their own.
> I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing
> to maintain the component.
>
>> But that\u2019s only my opinion.
>
> I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that
> "RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other>
> component.
The Commons charter mentions "reusable libraries and components". I used
to interpret this as general-purpose components, meaning that they are
useful for applications in multiple domains. This definition should hold
for most of the components we have now.
It does not hold for specialized math components. Therefore, I
personally feel uneasy with them and would have difficulties to provide
oversight for them.
But granted, the distinction is not very clear, and this is my
interpretation.
Oliver
>
>> And I\u2019m fine with the way it is now.
>
> I should be happy then, but somehow it adds to the confusion
> (not knowing why some would not support more components even
> though they are expected to be "healthy for our ecosystem").
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
> [1] I'm sure that it was possible (e.g. by having two lines
> of development).
>
>> My 2 cents
>> Benedikt
>>
>>> Am 13.04.2017 um 14:12 schrieb Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>>>
>>> Hi J�rg.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, J�rg Schaible wrote:
>>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>>
>>>> Oliver Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>>>>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
>>>>>>>> could?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>>>>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>>>>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>>>>>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>>>>>> contributing here.
>>>>>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>>>>>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
>>>>>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>>>>>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
>>>>>> dismissing
>>>>>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>>>>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an
>>>>>>>> awful lot
>>>>>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise
>>>>>>>> objections about
>>>>>>>> their mere existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give it a try?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK for small, focused, components?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
>>>>> components
>>>>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
>>>>> small
>>>>> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
>>>>> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the
>>>>> goal,
>>>>> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
>>>> components. If those attract in completion enough
>>>> contributors/committers,
>>>> we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the
>>>> creation of
>>>> RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see
>>>> a reason
>>>> to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
>>>
>>> What a change from the generally overwhelmingly negative tone
>>> of this ML! ;-)
>>>
>>> Can we learn something from why it was so hard for long-time
>>> developers to accept even non-destructive changes?
>>>
>>> IOW, can we expand on what is "healthy to our ecosystem"?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> J�rg
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:54:24 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I
>>> remember (I\u2019m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the
>>> PMC
>>> was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group
>>> decided it would be better to stay at commons.
>>
>> This needs correction:
>> 1. All the CM regular developers voted to create a TLP (and we
>> were even already discussing a name).
>> 2. During that discussion, I asked whether some of the roadblocks
>> (mainly overly conservativeness) would be lifted.
>> Then, rather than constructively lay out on how we can continue
>> working for the benefit of everyone,[1] the initiative was
>> "abandoned" following Phil Steitz's sudden decision to drop
>> its PMC-chair candidacy for the new project.
>
> This is past history. We don\u2019t need to talk about it any more. Doing
> so is just a waste of time.
>
>>
>>> Later some of those
>>> people decided it would be better to move away from Apache all
>>> together.
>>>
>>> That\u2019s okay for me.
>>
>> It should have posed question to the PMC: Why do people decide
>> to leave? Isn't there anything to do about it?
>
> Huh? The impression I was given was that the people who left were
> tired of playing in the same sandbox with the people they didn\u2019t
> invite into their new sandbox. There is nothing the PMC can
> realistically do about that once the decision is made. Again,there is
> very little to be gained by discussing this now.
Discussing the fork now would not change anything, you are right
of course; I'm using it as one of the examples when the PMC did
not fulfill (IMHO) an important role.
IIUC some PMC members think that the same causes will not lead
to the same consequence.
My question above was more general; _other_ people left, or
were discouraged by the ambient conservatism.
[Note: I certainly do not propose to accept something because
it's the new hype, but that CM was required to support Java 5
in 2016 (!) is telling.].
Gilles
>
> Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
> On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I
>> remember (I’m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC
>> was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group
>> decided it would be better to stay at commons.
>
> This needs correction:
> 1. All the CM regular developers voted to create a TLP (and we
> were even already discussing a name).
> 2. During that discussion, I asked whether some of the roadblocks
> (mainly overly conservativeness) would be lifted.
> Then, rather than constructively lay out on how we can continue
> working for the benefit of everyone,[1] the initiative was
> "abandoned" following Phil Steitz's sudden decision to drop
> its PMC-chair candidacy for the new project.
This is past history. We don’t need to talk about it any more. Doing so is just a waste of time.
>
>> Later some of those
>> people decided it would be better to move away from Apache all
>> together.
>>
>> That’s okay for me.
>
> It should have posed question to the PMC: Why do people decide
> to leave? Isn't there anything to do about it?
Huh? The impression I was given was that the people who left were tired of playing in the same sandbox with the people they didn’t invite into their new sandbox. There is nothing the PMC can realistically do about that once the decision is made. Again,there is very little to be gained by discussing this now.
Ralph
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Benedikt.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty
> well:
>
> \u201eI see busy people doing what they want when the want in all
> of Commons, respectfully and diligently.\u201c
>
> After going through the mails, I still don\u2019t understand how the PMC
> needs to change it ways in order to move CM forward. If there\u2019s
> nobody
> interested/has the time to maintain the code, so be it. I\u2019m regularly
> monitoring the proper components and move those which really nobody
> needs anymore to dormant. CM has never been on my list.
For good reason; CM contains very useful code.
This discussion is (again) about the issue which I tried to tackle
all those years: avoid becoming irrelevant (in the Java world).
The CM team was too conservative; which, in a domain where there
is no wide interest (scientific computing in Java), was not an
asset (as usually upheld in "Commons").
> Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I
> remember (I\u2019m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC
> was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group
> decided it would be better to stay at commons.
This needs correction:
1. All the CM regular developers voted to create a TLP (and we
were even already discussing a name).
2. During that discussion, I asked whether some of the roadblocks
(mainly overly conservativeness) would be lifted.
Then, rather than constructively lay out on how we can continue
working for the benefit of everyone,[1] the initiative was
"abandoned" following Phil Steitz's sudden decision to drop
its PMC-chair candidacy for the new project.
> Later some of those
> people decided it would be better to move away from Apache all
> together.
>
> That\u2019s okay for me.
It should have posed question to the PMC: Why do people decide
to leave? Isn't there anything to do about it?
> My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong
> into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their
> own.
The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for
projects too small to exist on their own.
I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing
to maintain the component.
> But that\u2019s only my opinion.
I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that
"RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other>
component.
> And I\u2019m fine with the way it is now.
I should be happy then, but somehow it adds to the confusion
(not knowing why some would not support more components even
though they are expected to be "healthy for our ecosystem").
Regards,
Gilles
[1] I'm sure that it was possible (e.g. by having two lines
of development).
> My 2 cents
> Benedikt
>
>> Am 13.04.2017 um 14:12 schrieb Gilles
>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>>
>> Hi J�rg.
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, J�rg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>
>>> Oliver Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
>>>>>>> could?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>>>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>>>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development
>>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>>>>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>>>>> contributing here.
>>>>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>>>>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore
>>>>> around
>>>>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>>>>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
>>>>> dismissing
>>>>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is
>>>>>> people voting
>>>>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>>>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed
>>>>>> code, the
>>>>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an
>>>>>>> awful lot
>>>>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise
>>>>>>> objections about
>>>>>>> their mere existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give it a try?
>>>>>
>>>>> OK for small, focused, components?
>>>>
>>>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>>>>
>>>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
>>>> components
>>>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
>>>> small
>>>> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web
>>>> site
>>>> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the
>>>> goal,
>>>> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
>>>
>>> Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number
>>> of
>>> components. If those attract in completion enough
>>> contributors/committers,
>>> we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the
>>> creation of
>>> RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see
>>> a reason
>>> to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
>>
>> What a change from the generally overwhelmingly negative tone
>> of this ML! ;-)
>>
>> Can we learn something from why it was so hard for long-time
>> developers to accept even non-destructive changes?
>>
>> IOW, can we expand on what is "healthy to our ecosystem"?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> J�rg
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi,
sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty well:
„I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all
of Commons, respectfully and diligently.“
After going through the mails, I still don’t understand how the PMC needs to change it ways in order to move CM forward. If there’s nobody interested/has the time to maintain the code, so be it. I’m regularly monitoring the proper components and move those which really nobody needs anymore to dormant. CM has never been on my list.
Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I remember (I’m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group decided it would be better to stay at commons. Later some of those people decided it would be better to move away from Apache all together. That’s okay for me.
My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their own. But that’s only my opinion. And I’m fine with the way it is now.
My 2 cents
Benedikt
> Am 13.04.2017 um 14:12 schrieb Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>
> Hi Jörg.
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> Oliver Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>>>>
>>>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>>>>
>>>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>>>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>>>> contributing here.
>>>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>>>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>>>
>>>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
>>>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>>>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before dismissing
>>>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people voting
>>>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
>>>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
>>>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
>>>>>> their mere existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it a try?
>>>>
>>>> OK for small, focused, components?
>>>
>>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>>>
>>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
>>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
>>> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
>>> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the goal,
>>> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
>>
>> Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
>> components. If those attract in completion enough contributors/committers,
>> we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the creation of
>> RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a reason
>> to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
>
> What a change from the generally overwhelmingly negative tone
> of this ML! ;-)
>
> Can we learn something from why it was so hard for long-time
> developers to accept even non-destructive changes?
>
> IOW, can we expand on what is "healthy to our ecosystem"?
>
> Thank you,
> Gilles
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi J�rg.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, J�rg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Oliver Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
>>>>> could?
>>>>
>>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development
>>>> process.
>>>
>>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>>> contributing here.
>>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>>
>>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore
>>> around
>>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
>>> dismissing
>>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>>
>>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
>>>> voting
>>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code,
>>>> the
>>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful
>>>>> lot
>>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections
>>>>> about
>>>>> their mere existence.
>>>>
>>>> Give it a try?
>>>
>>> OK for small, focused, components?
>>
>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>>
>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
>> components
>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
>> small
>> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web
>> site
>> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the
>> goal,
>> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
>
> Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
> components. If those attract in completion enough
> contributors/committers,
> we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the
> creation of
> RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a
> reason
> to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
What a change from the generally overwhelmingly negative tone
of this ML! ;-)
Can we learn something from why it was so hard for long-time
developers to accept even non-destructive changes?
IOW, can we expand on what is "healthy to our ecosystem"?
Thank you,
Gilles
>
> Cheers,
> J�rg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-04-13, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Oliver Heger wrote:
>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
>> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
>> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the goal,
>> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
> Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
> components. If those attract in completion enough contributors/committers,
> we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the creation of
> RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a reason
> to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
+1
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@bpm-inspire.com>.
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>>
>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>>
>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>> contributing here.
>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>
>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before dismissing
>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>
>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people voting
>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
>>>> their mere existence.
>>>
>>> Give it a try?
>>
>> OK for small, focused, components?
>
> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>
> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the goal,
> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
components. If those attract in completion enough contributors/committers,
we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the creation of
RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a reason
to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
Cheers,
J�rg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:04:00 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2017 12:41 PM, "Oliver Heger"
> <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
>>>> than
>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
>>>> could?
>>>
>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>>
>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>> contributing here.
>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>
>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore
>> around
>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
>> dismissing
>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>
>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
>>> voting
>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code,
>>> the
>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful
>>>> lot
>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections
>>>> about
>>>> their mere existence.
>>>
>>> Give it a try?
>>
>> OK for small, focused, components?
>
> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>
> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
> components
> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
> small
> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the
> goal,
> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
>
>
> I think I agree with that. When you look at CM, it is big, and I do
> not
> have a problem with that. A TLP might make the most sense.
?
[You do remember that the PMC did not want to let go of the code
when James Carman asked for the creation of a TLP?]
Gilles
>
> Gary
>
>
> Oliver
>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 12, 2017 12:41 PM, "Oliver Heger" <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>
>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>
> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
> contributing here.
> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>
> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
> here, it would be fine though, of course.
> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before dismissing
> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>
>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people voting
>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>
>>
>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
>>> their mere existence.
>>
>> Give it a try?
>
> OK for small, focused, components?
I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the goal,
I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
I think I agree with that. When you look at CM, it is big, and I do not
have a problem with that. A TLP might make the most sense.
Gary
Oliver
>
> Gilles
>
>
>>
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Oliver.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:41:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
>>>> than
>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
>>>> could?
>>>
>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>>
>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>> contributing here.
>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>
>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore
>> around
>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
>> dismissing
>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>
>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
>>> voting
>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code,
>>> the
>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful
>>>> lot
>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections
>>>> about
>>>> their mere existence.
>>>
>>> Give it a try?
>>
>> OK for small, focused, components?
>
> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
Good to know!
> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
> components
> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
> small
> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
> and about half of the components were math-related.
How fortunate, then, that we have so few contributors! :-}
Seriously: There are 28 "Commons" components having had an official
release since 2014; there isn't the slightest chance that what you
worry about can happen.
My suggested top-priority goal would be to have "Commons Numbers"
released, with more modules and/or more code borrowed from CM:
http://markmail.org/thread/j5532mnsrgu4jzkv
These include utilities that easily qualify as "Commons"-type (as
evoked by Eric) or natural "Numbers" companions (e.g. "MathArrays").
The other concrete proposal was "Commons SigProc", that qualified
for inclusion. [Unfortunately, we lost contact with Bernd Porr...]
Then we can release a "legacy" CM 4.0, with up-to-date dependencies
to "Commons Numbers" and "Commons RNG", and several other improvements
and bug fixes that could benefit some users of CM.
Gilles
> If this is the goal,
> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
>
> Oliver
>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>
>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>
> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
> contributing here.
> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>
> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
> here, it would be fine though, of course.
> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before dismissing
> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>
>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people voting
>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>
>>
>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
>>> their mere existence.
>>
>> Give it a try?
>
> OK for small, focused, components?
I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the goal,
I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
Oliver
>
> Gilles
>
>
>>
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>
> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
contributing here.
The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
here, it would be fine though, of course.
Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before dismissing
the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
> voting
> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
> vote will be a non-issue.
>
>
>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful
>> lot
>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections
>> about
>> their mere existence.
>
> Give it a try?
OK for small, focused, components?
Gilles
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people voting
on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
vote will be a non-issue.
> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
> their mere existence.
Give it a try?
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:06:02 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Gilles
> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't
>>> change
>>>> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I
>>>> observe
>>>> on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one
>>>> year
>>>> ago and I was right, in hindsight).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, then let's move commons-math to dormant and redirect the users
>>> to
>>> Hipparchus.
>>>
>>
>> Emmanuel,
>>
>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>
>> I sure hope that I'm not the only one here who would not like it.
>
>
> Hipparchus is also not a commons-type project.
Which is of course to say that Commons Math is also not of this type!
And this was the root cause of all our management problems.
Management was considered a non-problem by all the other regular
developers of CM. [How come then, that they ended up forking it?]
> They appear to have copied
> the boilerplate about small, lightweight, reusable components, but
> I'm not
> sure why -- that's just not what that library is at all.
Indeed.
In rounds of discussions I pointed out that this presentation of
Commons Math was outdated (thus, incorrect)...
>
> I suspect coders will not drop by Apache commons looking for stiff
> ODE
> solvers --
I agree; it's one of the functionalities which we cannot maintain
here.
> they will be looking for more basic and convenient functionality
> such as that provided by Numbers.
"Commons Numbers" can reasonably contain other functionalities yet
to be extracted from the CM "master" branch (cf. link to archived
post which I provided earlier in this thread).
> We should redirect the users to commons-numbers because that is what
> they
> probably want. But we could also mention that for a large and
> sophisticated
> mathematical library, they can check out Hipparchus.
We should not recommend it (and I question the term "sophisticated"
as a qualifier for the library as a whole, even though a lot of the
codes are individually very good).
Best regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Eric Barnhill <er...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change
>>> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I observe
>>> on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one year
>>> ago and I was right, in hindsight).
>>>
>>
>> Ok, then let's move commons-math to dormant and redirect the users to
>> Hipparchus.
>>
>
> Emmanuel,
>
> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>
> I sure hope that I'm not the only one here who would not like it.
Hipparchus is also not a commons-type project. They appear to have copied
the boilerplate about small, lightweight, reusable components, but I'm not
sure why -- that's just not what that library is at all.
I suspect coders will not drop by Apache commons looking for stiff ODE
solvers -- they will be looking for more basic and convenient functionality
such as that provided by Numbers.
We should redirect the users to commons-numbers because that is what they
probably want. But we could also mention that for a large and sophisticated
mathematical library, they can check out Hipparchus.
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
>> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't
>> change
>> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I
>> observe
>> on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one
>> year
>> ago and I was right, in hindsight).
>
> Ok, then let's move commons-math to dormant and redirect the users to
> Hipparchus.
Emmanuel,
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
I sure hope that I'm not the only one here who would not like it.
>> Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you
>> (IIRC,
>> pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been agreed
>> upon...
>
> Wasn't this because you wanted to create a new component before
> considering other options like creating a submodule of an existing
> component?
Modularization is the solution to a different problem.
In this case, it would not make CM more supported (since the PMC
would not be agree to exclude part of the code from the release).
>
>> Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC
>> is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not
>> get the
>> minimal support for an official release, even if there would be no
>> "technical reason"[4] to prevent such release.
>
> I wouldn't worry about that, even if few members are actively
> contributing to the code there are enough people ready to review and
> vote on the releases.
How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
their mere existence.
>
>> [1] It's the right size and scope: I now agree with the PMC members
>> who
>> did not see it useful to have its current modules as separate
>> components.
>
> Good, and it could be the same with CM for the parts that may not fit
> well in a separate component.
It's not the same (cf. above).
"Commons RNG" made several modules of related stuff ("focused" scope)
out of a subset of 2 CM packages (initially).
CM is not focused; it's a mixed bag of different
* subject domains,
* designs,
* performances.
It suffers from the same problems which "Lang" started to see (and
that led to the creation of "Commons Text") just a lot worse, because
it is bigger.
Gilles
>
>> [5] As usual, sorry for the long email, but trying to keep messages
>> short does not seem to help either in conveying correctly what I
>> perceive as a need for PMC action...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change
> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I observe
> on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one year
> ago and I was right, in hindsight).
Ok, then let's move commons-math to dormant and redirect the users to
Hipparchus.
> Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you (IIRC,
> pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been agreed upon...
Wasn't this because you wanted to create a new component before
considering other options like creating a submodule of an existing
component?
> Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC
> is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not get the
> minimal support for an official release, even if there would be no
> "technical reason"[4] to prevent such release.
I wouldn't worry about that, even if few members are actively
contributing to the code there are enough people ready to review and
vote on the releases.
> [1] It's the right size and scope: I now agree with the PMC members who
> did not see it useful to have its current modules as separate
> components.
Good, and it could be the same with CM for the parts that may not fit
well in a separate component.
> [5] As usual, sorry for the long email, but trying to keep messages
> short does not seem to help either in conveying correctly what I
> perceive as a need for PMC action...
Thanks!
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 14, 2017 12:31 PM, "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
Emmanuel,
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:37:08 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
>> design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
>> acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
>>
>
> Well, I had much more than mere "opinions" to offer to RNG,
>
You may have had, but you only gave opinions.
but you
> rushed
>
False.
Development started in December 2015 in the Commons Math
repository, with plenty of noisy messages (cf. reference in
previous post of this thread, for examples).
Then, after the CM fork, I made an appeal on this ML to let
me create small components, first among them: "Commons RNG",
on which I had working (openly, and on a daily basis) for six
months).
Every aspect of the new code, especially those that departed
from the design implemented in "Commons Math" classes, has been
the subject of JIRA issues, and posts on the ML. Reasons were
thoroughly laid out (to become the Javadoc and userguide).
Zero objection.
Then I requested a git repository from INFRA, and moved the
code from package "o.a.c.math4.rng".
In August 2016, after most of the work was done (based on the
proposed design, refactoring of the CM unit tests, adding more,
running external validation tools), I opened an issue to collect
the remaining tasks in view of a release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-6
Most of the code had been stable for months.
But I worked on yet another refactoring in order to have
modules (since a part of the PMC opposed the creation of
a separate "Commons Sampling" module).
In September 2016, I intended to cut a release, and only
then you started to question some of the foundation of the
design, on the ground that you wanted the component to
deal with functionality that had never been within the
intended scope.
Fortunately, I got support from one or two people who
also agreed that "do-ocracy" should prevail. You yourself
admitted that you arrived late into the game.
When the release was nearing, you asked to delay it for two
weeks in order to implement one or two generators.
Months passed, during which I ported two (other) generators.
Tired of waiting for a sign from you, the release happened
in mid-December.
Thus it took one year to release 1428 relevant lines[1] of
code!
and imposed your design.
>
You acknowledged that you did not follow the issue (questions
and discussions in the ML, JIRA issues, commits) and you were
asking questions that had been thoroughly exposed in the
that development history.
Even so, I answered to all your posts, but you were never
satisfied because you were actually talking about another
component, one about which my opinion was that it would be
a can of worms that would delay (ad infinitum) the release
of what was already available.
So be it, I gave up, I didn't have
> enough free time to keep up and argue with you,
>
That's the point, you argued but did not write any alternative
code.
And that is 100% Ok, it is just the nature of Commons.
Gary
and there are other
> areas where I can be useful.
>
Sure.
All the best,
Gilles
[1] https://coveralls.io/github/apache/commons-rng
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Emmanuel,
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:37:08 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
>> [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
>> design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
>> acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
>
> Well, I had much more than mere "opinions" to offer to RNG,
You may have had, but you only gave opinions.
> but you
> rushed
False.
Development started in December 2015 in the Commons Math
repository, with plenty of noisy messages (cf. reference in
previous post of this thread, for examples).
Then, after the CM fork, I made an appeal on this ML to let
me create small components, first among them: "Commons RNG",
on which I had working (openly, and on a daily basis) for six
months).
Every aspect of the new code, especially those that departed
from the design implemented in "Commons Math" classes, has been
the subject of JIRA issues, and posts on the ML. Reasons were
thoroughly laid out (to become the Javadoc and userguide).
Zero objection.
Then I requested a git repository from INFRA, and moved the
code from package "o.a.c.math4.rng".
In August 2016, after most of the work was done (based on the
proposed design, refactoring of the CM unit tests, adding more,
running external validation tools), I opened an issue to collect
the remaining tasks in view of a release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-6
Most of the code had been stable for months.
But I worked on yet another refactoring in order to have
modules (since a part of the PMC opposed the creation of
a separate "Commons Sampling" module).
In September 2016, I intended to cut a release, and only
then you started to question some of the foundation of the
design, on the ground that you wanted the component to
deal with functionality that had never been within the
intended scope.
Fortunately, I got support from one or two people who
also agreed that "do-ocracy" should prevail. You yourself
admitted that you arrived late into the game.
When the release was nearing, you asked to delay it for two
weeks in order to implement one or two generators.
Months passed, during which I ported two (other) generators.
Tired of waiting for a sign from you, the release happened
in mid-December.
Thus it took one year to release 1428 relevant lines[1] of
code!
> and imposed your design.
You acknowledged that you did not follow the issue (questions
and discussions in the ML, JIRA issues, commits) and you were
asking questions that had been thoroughly exposed in the
that development history.
Even so, I answered to all your posts, but you were never
satisfied because you were actually talking about another
component, one about which my opinion was that it would be
a can of worms that would delay (ad infinitum) the release
of what was already available.
> So be it, I gave up, I didn't have
> enough free time to keep up and argue with you,
That's the point, you argued but did not write any alternative
code.
> and there are other
> areas where I can be useful.
Sure.
All the best,
Gilles
[1] https://coveralls.io/github/apache/commons-rng
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
> [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
> design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
> acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
Well, I had much more than mere "opinions" to offer to RNG, but you
rushed and imposed your design. So be it, I gave up, I didn't have
enough free time to keep up and argue with you, and there are other
areas where I can be useful.
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
It seems to me that some of these issues are likely unavoidable. The
comment on this thread that resonated with me most was something like "I
don't look at Jiras of projects I don't care about". I could say "I have
been guilty of that behavior" but there is IMO nothing wrong with this
behavior. Commons is large and some components are large and non-trivial,
aside from Math (or should it be Maths ;) my native language is French but
I think it is "Maths" in the U.K.
All of this leads me to think that when one wants to discuss potentially
disruptive topics like splitting up a component or moving it to a TLP,
there is an extra level of presentation that is required when the component
is large or complex. Especially when one is trying to build consensus from
a diverse group of folks such as ours where it is well know that not every
person knows or care about every component.
What I mean about an extra level of presentation is a detailed description
with an explanation of size, scope and complexity of the various packages.
Maybe this is all on the component site already, maybe not. In the case of
Math, this might have helped non-CM devs become better aware of the big
picture.
It turns out that for Math, this kind of discussion might have been just
too onerous for the people that ended up forking Math into Hipowhatnot.
I can imagine that those folks just found it simpler and easier to just
move to a different place to keep coding as they saw fit.
At this point and based on memory of looking at the Math code base, I would
be OK with a TLP.
Long ramble done.
Gary
On Apr 14, 2017 9:12 AM, "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>
> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
>>>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
>>>> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
>>>> futile if it can raise awareness.]
>>>>
>>>
> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues
>>> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
>>>
>>
> A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
>> stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
>>
>
> But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
>> he let pass...
>>
>
> I don't recall ever claiming anything like this.
>
> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
> trying to attack me but I hope you are not. Email is a difficult beast,
> in particular emails written in a foreign language (German is my native
> language and I don't think English is yours, either, there is lot of
> room for misunderstandings).
>
Stefan,
English is not my native language, but I don't think that the
sentence you refer to contains anything offensive: "one" is not
"you".
[I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
> I prefer the "small steps" approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
>>>
>>
> That's what I've been advocating all along.
>>
>
> Fine, then we all seem to be on the same page. Let's move on.
>
> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't
>>> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
>>> interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
>>>
>>
> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered?
>>> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license
>>> - and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice
>>> and I'm not willing to judge them.
>>>
>>
> And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the
>> "surprise" fork.
>>
>
> Oops, I thought you were talking about the PMC harming MATH right now,
> after all you started the thread based on the report for the past
> quarter, not years ago. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
>
> Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have
>> been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing
>> the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the
>> community.
>>
>
> I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened. And I was hurt that
>> the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community fellows" keeping me
>> in the dark for five months, to work alone on a doomed project, while
>> they were sneakily setting up an alternative environment.
>>
>
> I understand the action hurt you. Absolutely.
>
> On the road that led to people starting their fork somewhere else there
> have been lots of heated arguments. It looked like bad flame-wars that
> happen in other communities as well and yes, the PMC should probably
> have tried to stop them and remind people to treat each other with
> respect. We didn't and I think this has been acknowledged in the past. I
> don't have the links ready but I know several PMC members have said so
> already. We try to learn from it.
>
> We don't need to tell the board that we are still trying to do better
> with each report, though. :-)
>
> To be frank my recollection of said arguments is not one where one side
> was the reasonable voice and victim of attacks while the other side was
> wielding flame-throwers. We should have called out *all* of you.
>
I know that I can be stubborn, the more so when I think that I'm
right and when all the codes and references I can find point in the
same direction.
Calling off a "flame-war" is necessary, but sometimes not sufficient.
In the particular case I have in mind, _all_ the PMC members should
have at least quickly browsed through the arguments:
http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
In my necessarily biased opinion, the above was obviously showing
that one side of argument was presenting all the facts while the
other rested on pure speculation.
As to the action of forking itself, I still don't see anything the PMC
> should have done about it. We should have interfered before it
> happened. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that we could have been
> successfull back then.
>
When the fork was announced, it was too late, indeed.
Because the move was kept secret; in blatant contradiction with
the touted "open" and "consensus" and "community" buzzwords.
> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
>>> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that
>>> share those goal - which is great.
>>>
>>
> Or stupid...
>>
>
> No more stupid than most of us working on any other component in their
> spare time.
>
> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
>>> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted.
>>>
>>
> Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
>> willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
>> from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
>> reference):
>>
>
> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This takes
> time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development approach can
> move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based development
> that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with our github repos
> on our own.
>
It's also my opinion that we are more strongly contributing
to the open source model by being a team.
But I often have the feeling that the PMC operates as an
aggregate of individualities rather than as a community.
There are low-level requirements (naming of releases, vote
counts, etc.), but hardly any policies.
I'm convinced that it can hurt the community as it can hurt
individual contributors.
Both happened as we should all be able to see.
Thanks for your attention,
Gilles
> Stefan
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:10:56 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 18/04/2017 � 15:42, Gilles a �crit :
>
>> And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than
>> "opinion".
>
> And how do you reach consensus if you aren't open to others opinions?
> Doing and not listening is just a variant of dictatorship, that's not
> my
> vision of an open community.
Please do not reverse the roles.
[And if you actually want to have a constructive exchange, choose
a concrete example; these insinuations start to look like an urban
legend.]
Gilles
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
Le 18/04/2017 � 15:42, Gilles a �crit :
> And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than
> "opinion".
And how do you reach consensus if you aren't open to others opinions?
Doing and not listening is just a variant of dictatorship, that's not my
vision of an open community.
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hello Stefan.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:15:20 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> [sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a
> thread
> that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one
> thing]
I think that you have highlighted why "Commons" ways did not
work for CM.
> On 2017-04-14, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>
>>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>>>> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA
>>>>> issues raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't
>>>>> :-)
>
>>>> A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
>>>> stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
>
>>>> But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues
>>>> which
>>>> he let pass...
>
>>> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
>>> trying to attack me but I hope you are not.
>
>> English is not my native language, but I don't think that the
>> sentence you refer to contains anything offensive: "one" is not
>> "you".
>
> Thank you.
>
> The way to construct the attack is that I talk about me and you talk
> about "one" and I had no reason to assume the "one" could be anybody
> other than me. I'm still not sure why you said the above at all as
> Emmanuel wasn't participating in the conversation at all.
Because I wished that we consider concrete examples of what went
wrong, in order to improve everybody's experience here.
A general assumption that "nobody's is malicious", even when true,
is not helping.
> Thanks for clarifying it.
>
>>>> Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
>>>> willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
>>>> from
>>>> someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
>>>> reference):
>
>>> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
>>> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This
>>> takes time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development
>>> approach can move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus
>>> based
>>> development that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with
>>> our github repos on our own.
>
>> It's also my opinion that we are more strongly contributing to the
>> open source model by being a team. But I often have the feeling
>> that
>> the PMC operates as an aggregate of individualities rather than as a
>> community.
>
> Well, that's because we are all individuals. :-)
>
> For Commons it is more difficult to form a community than for most
> "normal" ASF projects as the least common denominator is much
> smaller. In "normal" project you've got a product vision and a shared
> code base to align folks.
Exactly!
"Commons Math" is a perfect example of "non-alignment":
* no common vision
* no shared code base
[In the past, I argued about them terribly lacking in CM,
so I'll not expand again here...]
Creating focused components is bent to solve those two issues.
[And consequently, the "rules" (or absence thereof) that worked
for other "Commons" components (i.e. real ones) will work for the
CM spin-offs too.]
> All we've got is the goal to produce something
> useful - where many of us have different ideas of what will be useful
> -
And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than
"opinion".
> and the idea of doing so via collaboration.
>
> IMHO we need to accept that we are a pretty diverse bunch of
> people. We've got different reasons for being here and we are
> certainly
> different in our approaches of reaching our goals. Mutual respect is
> what can bind us - and I believe this is what was lost in the MATH
> case.
It is a fact that the people who forked it did not search for
consensus. [The ML archive is proof of it.]
They and I had different priorities, but they did not accept
such a "diversity": Not changing the code became more important
than improving the shared experience.
>
>> There are low-level requirements (naming of releases, vote counts,
>> etc.), but hardly any policies.
>
> Well, some of us may enjoy working here because we don't have that
> many
> rules and policies. I think I am one of those.
"Diversity" and "no rules" do not go along very well (as in the
real world).
When "no rules" work (here), it is because it is usually easy to
see the best one from a few technical alternatives.
I'm convinced that it will be so too with any of the components
that have a "math" flavour.
Simply, whenever possible it is better to have that code supported
here rather than duplicated on yet another GitHub project.
Regards,
Gilles
>
> Stefan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
[sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a thread
that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one thing]
On 2017-04-14, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>>> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA
>>>> issues raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't
>>>> :-)
>>> A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
>>> stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
>>> But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
>>> he let pass...
>> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
>> trying to attack me but I hope you are not.
> English is not my native language, but I don't think that the
> sentence you refer to contains anything offensive: "one" is not
> "you".
Thank you.
The way to construct the attack is that I talk about me and you talk
about "one" and I had no reason to assume the "one" could be anybody
other than me. I'm still not sure why you said the above at all as
Emmanuel wasn't participating in the conversation at all.
Thanks for clarifying it.
>>> Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
>>> willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments from
>>> someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
>>> reference):
>> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
>> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This
>> takes time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development
>> approach can move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based
>> development that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with
>> our github repos on our own.
> It's also my opinion that we are more strongly contributing to the
> open source model by being a team. But I often have the feeling that
> the PMC operates as an aggregate of individualities rather than as a
> community.
Well, that's because we are all individuals. :-)
For Commons it is more difficult to form a community than for most
"normal" ASF projects as the least common denominator is much
smaller. In "normal" project you've got a product vision and a shared
code base to align folks. All we've got is the goal to produce something
useful - where many of us have different ideas of what will be useful -
and the idea of doing so via collaboration.
IMHO we need to accept that we are a pretty diverse bunch of
people. We've got different reasons for being here and we are certainly
different in our approaches of reaching our goals. Mutual respect is
what can bind us - and I believe this is what was lost in the MATH case.
> There are low-level requirements (naming of releases, vote counts,
> etc.), but hardly any policies.
Well, some of us may enjoy working here because we don't have that many
rules and policies. I think I am one of those.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>
>>>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
>>>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
>>>> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
>>>> futile if it can raise awareness.]
>
>>> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA
>>> issues
>>> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
>
>> A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
>> stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
>
>> But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
>> he let pass...
>
> I don't recall ever claiming anything like this.
>
> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
> trying to attack me but I hope you are not. Email is a difficult
> beast,
> in particular emails written in a foreign language (German is my
> native
> language and I don't think English is yours, either, there is lot of
> room for misunderstandings).
Stefan,
English is not my native language, but I don't think that the
sentence you refer to contains anything offensive: "one" is not
"you".
[I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
>
>>> I prefer the "small steps" approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
>
>> That's what I've been advocating all along.
>
> Fine, then we all seem to be on the same page. Let's move on.
>
>>> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I
>>> don't
>>> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
>>> interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
>
>>> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been
>>> endangered?
>>> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our
>>> license
>>> - and move to work in a different environment - which is their
>>> choice
>>> and I'm not willing to judge them.
>
>> And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the
>> "surprise" fork.
>
> Oops, I thought you were talking about the PMC harming MATH right
> now,
> after all you started the thread based on the report for the past
> quarter, not years ago. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
>
>> Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have
>> been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing
>> the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the
>> community.
>
>> I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened. And I was hurt
>> that
>> the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community fellows" keeping me
>> in the dark for five months, to work alone on a doomed project,
>> while
>> they were sneakily setting up an alternative environment.
>
> I understand the action hurt you. Absolutely.
>
> On the road that led to people starting their fork somewhere else
> there
> have been lots of heated arguments. It looked like bad flame-wars
> that
> happen in other communities as well and yes, the PMC should probably
> have tried to stop them and remind people to treat each other with
> respect. We didn't and I think this has been acknowledged in the
> past. I
> don't have the links ready but I know several PMC members have said
> so
> already. We try to learn from it.
>
> We don't need to tell the board that we are still trying to do better
> with each report, though. :-)
>
> To be frank my recollection of said arguments is not one where one
> side
> was the reasonable voice and victim of attacks while the other side
> was
> wielding flame-throwers. We should have called out *all* of you.
I know that I can be stubborn, the more so when I think that I'm
right and when all the codes and references I can find point in the
same direction.
Calling off a "flame-war" is necessary, but sometimes not sufficient.
In the particular case I have in mind, _all_ the PMC members should
have at least quickly browsed through the arguments:
http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
In my necessarily biased opinion, the above was obviously showing
that one side of argument was presenting all the facts while the
other rested on pure speculation.
> As to the action of forking itself, I still don't see anything the
> PMC
> should have done about it. We should have interfered before it
> happened. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that we could have been
> successfull back then.
When the fork was announced, it was too late, indeed.
Because the move was kept secret; in blatant contradiction with
the touted "open" and "consensus" and "community" buzzwords.
>
>>> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
>>> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that
>>> share those goal - which is great.
>
>> Or stupid...
>
> No more stupid than most of us working on any other component in
> their
> spare time.
>
>>> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
>>> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted.
>
>> Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
>> willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
>> from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
>> reference):
>
> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This
> takes
> time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development approach
> can
> move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based development
> that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with our github
> repos
> on our own.
It's also my opinion that we are more strongly contributing
to the open source model by being a team.
But I often have the feeling that the PMC operates as an
aggregate of individualities rather than as a community.
There are low-level requirements (naming of releases, vote
counts, etc.), but hardly any policies.
I'm convinced that it can hurt the community as it can hurt
individual contributors.
Both happened as we should all be able to see.
Thanks for your attention,
Gilles
>
> Stefan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
As always very well put, Stefan!
Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> schrieb am Fr. 14. Apr. 2017 um 16:34:
> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>
> >>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
> >>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
> >>> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
> >>> futile if it can raise awareness.]
>
> >> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues
> >> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
>
> > A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
> > stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
>
> > But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
> > he let pass...
>
> I don't recall ever claiming anything like this.
>
> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
> trying to attack me but I hope you are not. Email is a difficult beast,
> in particular emails written in a foreign language (German is my native
> language and I don't think English is yours, either, there is lot of
> room for misunderstandings).
>
> >> I prefer the "small steps" approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
>
> > That's what I've been advocating all along.
>
> Fine, then we all seem to be on the same page. Let's move on.
>
> >> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't
> >> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
> >> interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
>
> >> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered?
> >> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license
> >> - and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice
> >> and I'm not willing to judge them.
>
> > And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the
> > "surprise" fork.
>
> Oops, I thought you were talking about the PMC harming MATH right now,
> after all you started the thread based on the report for the past
> quarter, not years ago. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
>
> > Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have
> > been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing
> > the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the
> > community.
>
> > I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened. And I was hurt that
> > the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community fellows" keeping me
> > in the dark for five months, to work alone on a doomed project, while
> > they were sneakily setting up an alternative environment.
>
> I understand the action hurt you. Absolutely.
>
> On the road that led to people starting their fork somewhere else there
> have been lots of heated arguments. It looked like bad flame-wars that
> happen in other communities as well and yes, the PMC should probably
> have tried to stop them and remind people to treat each other with
> respect. We didn't and I think this has been acknowledged in the past. I
> don't have the links ready but I know several PMC members have said so
> already. We try to learn from it.
>
> We don't need to tell the board that we are still trying to do better
> with each report, though. :-)
>
> To be frank my recollection of said arguments is not one where one side
> was the reasonable voice and victim of attacks while the other side was
> wielding flame-throwers. We should have called out *all* of you.
>
> As to the action of forking itself, I still don't see anything the PMC
> should have done about it. We should have interfered before it
> happened. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that we could have been
> successfull back then.
>
> >> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
> >> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that
> >> share those goal - which is great.
>
> > Or stupid...
>
> No more stupid than most of us working on any other component in their
> spare time.
>
> >> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
> >> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted.
>
> > Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
> > willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
> > from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
> > reference):
>
> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This takes
> time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development approach can
> move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based development
> that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with our github repos
> on our own.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
>>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
>>> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
>>> futile if it can raise awareness.]
>> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues
>> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
> A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
> stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
> But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
> he let pass...
I don't recall ever claiming anything like this.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
trying to attack me but I hope you are not. Email is a difficult beast,
in particular emails written in a foreign language (German is my native
language and I don't think English is yours, either, there is lot of
room for misunderstandings).
>> I prefer the "small steps" approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
> That's what I've been advocating all along.
Fine, then we all seem to be on the same page. Let's move on.
>> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't
>> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
>> interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
>> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered?
>> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license
>> - and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice
>> and I'm not willing to judge them.
> And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the
> "surprise" fork.
Oops, I thought you were talking about the PMC harming MATH right now,
after all you started the thread based on the report for the past
quarter, not years ago. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
> Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have
> been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing
> the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the
> community.
> I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened. And I was hurt that
> the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community fellows" keeping me
> in the dark for five months, to work alone on a doomed project, while
> they were sneakily setting up an alternative environment.
I understand the action hurt you. Absolutely.
On the road that led to people starting their fork somewhere else there
have been lots of heated arguments. It looked like bad flame-wars that
happen in other communities as well and yes, the PMC should probably
have tried to stop them and remind people to treat each other with
respect. We didn't and I think this has been acknowledged in the past. I
don't have the links ready but I know several PMC members have said so
already. We try to learn from it.
We don't need to tell the board that we are still trying to do better
with each report, though. :-)
To be frank my recollection of said arguments is not one where one side
was the reasonable voice and victim of attacks while the other side was
wielding flame-throwers. We should have called out *all* of you.
As to the action of forking itself, I still don't see anything the PMC
should have done about it. We should have interfered before it
happened. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that we could have been
successfull back then.
>> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
>> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that
>> share those goal - which is great.
> Or stupid...
No more stupid than most of us working on any other component in their
spare time.
>> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
>> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted.
> Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
> willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
> from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
> reference):
That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This takes
time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development approach can
move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based development
that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with our github repos
on our own.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>
>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
>> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
>> futile if it can raise awareness.]
>
> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues
> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
he let pass...
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:22:23 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>
>>>> IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
>>>> contributing to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in
>>>> preventing "do-ocracy" wrt the choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
>
>>> You can count myself into the camp of people who are willing to let
>>> a
>>> component go dormant if it doesn't get maintained. But I'm unlikely
>>> to go actively looking for unmaintained components.
>
>> a _lot_ of work has been done (since at least 4 years) on the branch
>> that was bound to become CM 4.0. I'm inclined to think that it
>> deserves more than being thrown away.
>
> I'm not suggesting to throw away anything. All I said was that I'm
> prepared to move unmaintained components to dormant where anybody can
> pick them up again later. You're saying MATH isn't unmaintained,
> that's
> fine.
Maybe we mean the same thing.
I've indeed said so one year ago. It is still true, if we consider
that "maintenance" comprises the capacity to absorb JIRA issues
(communication with developers and bug-fixing).
> I'm still not sure where you see do-ocracy being prevented. If
> anybody
> wanted to RM a MATH release, they can do so.
That's quite true, but _I_ did not want to, for the above reason!
Nevertheless, most the CM pieces have a lot of value, and IMO
would become even more valuable as separate components. [Rationale:
separation of concerns, attracting people concerned by a single
"piece" of code.]
However, to my lasting dismay, some people clung to the bad and
outdated pieces too.
In effect, they did stall work on the 4.0 release of CM.
> And to me it looks as if
> nobody was preventing you - or anybody else - from creating new
> components seeded by code taken from MATH (as long as the number
> doesn't
> get scary, I hear you, Oliver :-).
>
> It seems creating a git repository as the first step may not be the
> preferred approach, though.
It was not the "first step" (cf. ML archive).
>>> I'm not sure we need a roadmap. IMHO if you can identify a viable
>>> subset of MATH you want to maintain as a separate component, then
>>> you
>>> should be able to do just that. At the same time this shouldn't
>>> prevent anybody else from working on MATH if they really want to.
>
>> Exactly (although the latter did not happen, and it's something for
>> the PMC to take into account when alternative are proposed).
>
> It is probably a lot easier to accept "let's create a new component
> that
> focusses on X with code seeded from MATH" than "here is a big plan
> for
> how we want to deal with breaking up MATH".
There can't be a "big plan" because we lost too much expertise to
carry it out safely.
Modularizing the whole of CM (as advocated by Emmanuel) is a heavy
effort that is unlikely to be rewarding. [Even though "back then"
it was a good idea (I was a proponent).]
> I prefer the "small steps"
> approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
That's what I've been advocating all along.
>> As you know, this CM issue has created a lot of grievance.
>
>> I do complain that the PMC did not fulfill its role, by not even
>> trying to safe-guard the "Commons" project's integrity.
>
>> I expect the "Commons" PMC to _support_ the people who work here
>> (cf. "git log").
>
> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't
> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
> interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
>
> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered?
> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license
> -
> and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice
> and
> I'm not willing to judge them.
And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the
"surprise" fork.
Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have
been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing
the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the
community.
I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened.
And I was hurt that the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community
fellows" keeping me in the dark for five months, to work alone on a
doomed project, while they were sneakily setting up an alternative
environment.
> But the code is still here and anybody is
> free to keep working on it. No danger for the Commons project IMHO,
> maybe a danger for the MATH component going dormant which is
> something
> that may happen to any other component as well when people stop
> working
> on them.
>
> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that
> share
> those goal - which is great.
Or stupid...
I understand that most people here do not understand what I'm talking
about, perhaps because they were not involved personally.
Thus we have to face that "Community over code" is an empty statement:
Comforting when not necessary; but when things started to get awry,
no "community" was paying attention (see December 2015 ML archive).
> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted.
Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
reference): I'm still wondering which part of Commons RNG could
make me deserve the treatment I got when I started working on the
"random" package of Commons Math.
> But that's
> what you get inside a chatty community (I'm deliberatly rate-limiting
> my
> responses :-). The new contributors have been made committers by the
> PMC.
>
> I'm confident the PMC won't stand in the way of creating new
> self-contained components in the future, some members of the PMC may
> quibble over the details, though, and you'll need even more
> discussions.
And in the meantime other projects do actual work!
[Oops, I should do that too...]
Gilles
>
> Stefan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
> futile if it can raise awareness.]
By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues
raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:22:23 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>>> IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
>>> contributing to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in
>>> preventing "do-ocracy" wrt the choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
>> You can count myself into the camp of people who are willing to let a
>> component go dormant if it doesn't get maintained. But I'm unlikely
>> to go actively looking for unmaintained components.
> a _lot_ of work has been done (since at least 4 years) on the branch
> that was bound to become CM 4.0. I'm inclined to think that it
> deserves more than being thrown away.
I'm not suggesting to throw away anything. All I said was that I'm
prepared to move unmaintained components to dormant where anybody can
pick them up again later. You're saying MATH isn't unmaintained, that's
fine.
I'm still not sure where you see do-ocracy being prevented. If anybody
wanted to RM a MATH release, they can do so. And to me it looks as if
nobody was preventing you - or anybody else - from creating new
components seeded by code taken from MATH (as long as the number doesn't
get scary, I hear you, Oliver :-).
It seems creating a git repository as the first step may not be the
preferred approach, though.
>> I'm not sure we need a roadmap. IMHO if you can identify a viable
>> subset of MATH you want to maintain as a separate component, then you
>> should be able to do just that. At the same time this shouldn't
>> prevent anybody else from working on MATH if they really want to.
> Exactly (although the latter did not happen, and it's something for
> the PMC to take into account when alternative are proposed).
It is probably a lot easier to accept "let's create a new component that
focusses on X with code seeded from MATH" than "here is a big plan for
how we want to deal with breaking up MATH". I prefer the "small steps"
approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
> As you know, this CM issue has created a lot of grievance.
> I do complain that the PMC did not fulfill its role, by not even
> trying to safe-guard the "Commons" project's integrity.
> I expect the "Commons" PMC to _support_ the people who work here
> (cf. "git log").
I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't
understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered?
I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license -
and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice and
I'm not willing to judge them. But the code is still here and anybody is
free to keep working on it. No danger for the Commons project IMHO,
maybe a danger for the MATH component going dormant which is something
that may happen to any other component as well when people stop working
on them.
I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that share
those goal - which is great.
The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted. But that's
what you get inside a chatty community (I'm deliberatly rate-limiting my
responses :-). The new contributors have been made committers by the
PMC.
I'm confident the PMC won't stand in the way of creating new
self-contained components in the future, some members of the PMC may
quibble over the details, though, and you'll need even more discussions.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Stefan.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:22:23 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> [sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been
> following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial]
>
> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>>> What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC?
>
>> With "Commons RNG", I think that I showed that the "new, small,
>> focused components" route is the right one.[1]
>
> I agree.
Thank you!
>> Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you
>> (IIRC, pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been
>> agreed upon...
>
> The details are escaping me, maybe you need to state your desire to
> break a new piece out of MATH as a separate component first and give
> people time to comment before requesting a repo for it? Alternatively
> start inside the sandbox (I hope nobody has ever stopped anybody from
> creating a sandbox component - but I may certainly have missed it).
There has been much inconclusive discussion (opinion vs opinion) that
only actual work can eventually dispel doubt.
[Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and most
PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening JIRA
issues
all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not futile if it can
raise awareness.]
>> IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
>> contributing to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in
>> preventing
>> "do-ocracy" wrt the choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
>
> You can count myself into the camp of people who are willing to let a
> component go dormant if it doesn't get maintained. But I'm unlikely
> to
> go actively looking for unmaintained components. Looking at the
> commits
> of commons-math it seems to get some love from time to time, not
> enough
> that anybody would want to cut a release, though.
You demonstrate that one's impression can be quite wrong: a _lot_ of
work has been done (since at least 4 years) on the branch that was
bound to become CM 4.0. I'm inclined to think that it deserves more
than being thrown away.
The problem is that the sheer size of CM make it looks like negligible
quantity, when seen from the peanut gallery. ;-)
> I'm not sure we need a roadmap. IMHO if you can identify a viable
> subset
> of MATH you want to maintain as a separate component, then you should
> be
> able to do just that. At the same time this shouldn't prevent anybody
> else from working on MATH if they really want to.
Exactly (although the latter did not happen, and it's something for
the PMC to take into account when alternative are proposed).
>> Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC:
>> http://markmail.org/thread/pgrgnnwjnqrtzrw3
>
> proves that nobody apart from Rob is willing to cut a MATH release
> right
> now. The same would likely be true for a few other components as well
> (the last DISCOVERY release is almost six years old) and it doesn't
> worry me at all. It only says "MATH may be a candidate for going
> dormant" to me.
CM, yes; some of its packages and classes, definitely not (even though
a lot of work would be welcome to transition to the Java 8 era, and
make
the library as relevant as the good implementations it contains).
> This is a PMC member view and certainly not the view of a MATH user.
> But
> you are asking for a PMC opinion.
I hope that you can revise your opinion in light of the additional
info I've provided.
>> is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not
>> get the minimal support for an official release, even if there would
>> be no "technical reason"[4] to prevent such release.
>
> Not really. I regularly ask for feedback on COMPRESS without getting
> any
> responses but still manage to collect enough votes when I want to
> carve
> a new release. Fortunately there are a few "hero"s (many thanks to
> you!)
> on this list who manage to review RCs and cast votes for almost every
> candidate thrown their way, I'm not one of them.
As you know, this CM issue has created a lot of grievance.
I do complain that the PMC did not fulfill its role, by not even
trying to safe-guard the "Commons" project's integrity.
I expect the "Commons" PMC to _support_ the people who work here
(cf. "git log").
Thanks,
Gilles
>
> Stefan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
[sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been
following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial]
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC?
> With "Commons RNG", I think that I showed that the "new, small,
> focused components" route is the right one.[1]
I agree.
> Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you
> (IIRC, pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been
> agreed upon...
The details are escaping me, maybe you need to state your desire to
break a new piece out of MATH as a separate component first and give
people time to comment before requesting a repo for it? Alternatively
start inside the sandbox (I hope nobody has ever stopped anybody from
creating a sandbox component - but I may certainly have missed it).
> IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
> contributing to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in preventing
> "do-ocracy" wrt the choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
You can count myself into the camp of people who are willing to let a
component go dormant if it doesn't get maintained. But I'm unlikely to
go actively looking for unmaintained components. Looking at the commits
of commons-math it seems to get some love from time to time, not enough
that anybody would want to cut a release, though.
I'm not sure we need a roadmap. IMHO if you can identify a viable subset
of MATH you want to maintain as a separate component, then you should be
able to do just that. At the same time this shouldn't prevent anybody
else from working on MATH if they really want to.
> Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC:
> http://markmail.org/thread/pgrgnnwjnqrtzrw3
proves that nobody apart from Rob is willing to cut a MATH release right
now. The same would likely be true for a few other components as well
(the last DISCOVERY release is almost six years old) and it doesn't
worry me at all. It only says "MATH may be a candidate for going
dormant" to me.
This is a PMC member view and certainly not the view of a MATH user. But
you are asking for a PMC opinion.
> is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not
> get the minimal support for an official release, even if there would
> be no "technical reason"[4] to prevent such release.
Not really. I regularly ask for feedback on COMPRESS without getting any
responses but still manage to collect enough votes when I want to carve
a new release. Fortunately there are a few "hero"s (many thanks to you!)
on this list who manage to review RCs and cast votes for almost every
candidate thrown their way, I'm not one of them.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org